Sardar Balbir Singh by examining himself in the witness box and this fact was appreciated by the Tribunal while accepting the application submitted by the petitioner and accordingly, the order of eviction was passed against the respondent-tenant. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Court has reversed the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal on a technical count that since during pendency of the rent eviction application, the original landlord expired, the bona fide need of the landlord has come to an end and since his son Harpreet Singh was not examined in the witness box, the bona fide need of the son was not established on the record. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehmooda Gulshan Vs. Javaid Hussain Mungloo reported in 2017 (5) SCC 683 and C. Karunakaran (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. T. Meenakshi reported in 2005 (13) SCC 99 . Learned counsel submits that mere non-examination of the person for whose need the premises is required by itself could not be a ground to nonsuit the landlord. Counsel submits that if the bona fide need is established on the basis of the evidence of the landlord, it is not necessary that the son, for whose necessity the suit has been filed, is required to be examined in the witness box. Learned counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned orders passed by the Rent Tribunal are not tenable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed and set-aside.
